Landscape Research Record No.1 MATERIAL IN THE LANDSCAPE: THE FEASIBILITY OF REUSING IN LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN

MCDOWELL, CHRISTOPHER P. UGA College of Environment + Design, 225 West Broad Street, Studio 1, Athens, GA 30602, [email protected]

MELCHER, KATHERINE UGA College of Environment + Design, 285 South Jackson Street, Athens, GA 30602, [email protected]

1 ABSTRACT Wood reuse is an effective technique for reducing human impact on the landscape and additionally has much untapped potential in bringing economic, environmental and cultural benefits to the field of landscape construction and design. Designers have a professional and ethical responsibility to address the challenges associated with conventional practices of landscape construction, such as the over reliance on specifying virgin building materials. Materials reuse, an essential component of the movement, offers an alternative method for landscape architects and designers to view materials in life cycles as opposed to single-life disposable products. This study specifically examines whether reusing wood is a practical design tool for landscape architects and construction professionals compared to traditional applications using virgin wood products. The overall goal of this study is to gain experiential knowledge and produce tangible evidence through the physical construction of three common landscape items utilizing three common types of wood followed by a thorough review by landscape design and construction professionals. Each of the wood waste prototypes are measured against a comparable landscape product composed of virgin wood materials. All products are evaluated according to five design criteria: aesthetics, affordability, durability, efficiency and ecological impact. The study concludes that reused wood prototypes scored highly in all categories of design criteria in comparison to conventional virgin wood products; however, there are numerous issues that thwart mainstream application of reused materials in landscape construction and design, thus significant reform must take place within the construction industry for reuse to be widely accepted.

1.1 Keywords material reuse, reclaimed wood, sustainable landscape construction, deconstruction

116

Landscape Research Record No.1

2 THE DILEMMA OF WASTE Take a look into any curbside trashcan or job-site waste container and it is evident that a great amount of wood waste is neither reused nor recycled. There are many reasons for this, chiefly because of time constraints and storage concerns, but is there larger systemic causes for wood to be landfilled at such staggering rates instead of being reused? After all, wood is such a familiar American product. The EPA estimates that approximately 250,000 single-family homes are demolished each year in the US (EPA, 2008). Based on case studies from 2002, the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) determined on average 30 percent of demolition wood waste was recoverable (Falk, 2002). Alternatives to demolition such as deconstruction, materials reuse and have the potential to divert large amounts of waste from the landfill; however, there are many reasons why the hulking construction sector has been slow to adopt these practices, as well as why designers are often mystified as how to incorporate them into projects consistently. In the past century, a consumer-driven throwaway culture has emerged resulting in a glut of single-use, disposable products, which have subsequently led to massive accumulations of waste on Earth. “Waste” in modern times, is seen not as a valuable commodity, but instead a liability to be removed. Landscape architects have an increasingly prominent role in developing solutions to vastly complicated problems such as through the utilization of ecologically responsible construction practices. However, in order to make a sizable impact in countering the deleterious effects of waste, widespread reform within the design and construction industry has to take place, such as a complete reversal of the conventional practices of seeing materials and built products through the lens of a linear or “cradle to grave” trajectory and instead through material life cycles. In recent years, with the development of the green building industry, designers and construction professionals have become increasingly conscious of the source and end life of building materials, as it is now widely established that the production and disposal of materials have drastic consequences for the environment in the form of excessive pollution and degradation to the landscape (O’Connor and Sathre, 2010; Thompson and Sorvig, 2008). Seeing construction from an ecological standpoint and “closing the loop” of building material flows are concepts that are relatively new but integral to the future of green building. Emerging professionals in the new millennium are clearly more in tune to the concerns of anthropogenic climate change, but are we really doing enough? Exhaustive amounts of research and analysis in the academic field of landscape architecture by reuse luminaries such as Meg Calkins and Kim Sorvig have made the case for reclaimed materials being used in practice, specifically in landscape construction (Calkins, 2000; Calkins, 2002; Calkins, 2009; Thompson and Sorvig, 2008). Even so, materials reuse remains one of the least used components of LEED and conventional practices of design and construction have mostly failed to incorporate reuse into built projects on a large scale despite the growing awareness of material life cycles (Addis, 2006). The raw numbers still show that a substantial amount of potentially usable construction and demolition (C&D) materials are destined for the landfill. In most Southern and Western US states where tipping fees at municipal solid waste (MSW) and C&D landfills are as low as $25 per ton, landfilling is the preferred method for waste management (DCA, 2010). Although reuse (and particularly recycling) has improved substantially since the early 1990s, only ten to twenty percent of total waste is diverted annually, mainly in the form of metal and (Kibert, Sendzimir, and Guy, 2001). Nonetheless, materials reuse – or in the case of this study, wood reuse – presents an abundantly beneficial opportunity for landscape architects to design and construct meaningful, cost-effective and aesthetically pleasing landscapes while adhering to environmental values of the green building movement.

2.1 Reusing Wood in the Landscape Although there are numerous types of materials that landscape architects and contractors will ultimately specify in design projects, wood is one such product that is universally used, has historically been used since the recording of modern time and also is a building material that is truly considered to be ‘sustainable’ because it has a minimal carbon footprint and low embodied energy compared to energy intensive products that are mined from the Earth like metals, rock or concrete (Falk, 2010). Wood is an immensely popular and trusted brand because it is easy to work with, cost efficient and a plentiful and renewable resource in the US, that is, if it is harvested sustainably. Considering that almost half of timber harvested in the forest ends up as a construction building material, wood has huge implications to the environment (Falk, 2010).

117

Landscape Research Record No.1

In contrast to the many positive qualities, wood has a particularly different existence in the landscape. Wood, of course, is impermanent and highly susceptible to the deleterious effects of climate such as rot, infestation and UV exposure (Lyons, 2007; Winterbottom, 2000). While wood has a low embodied energy relative to other materials, it performs poorly in terms of life cycle analysis (LCA) primarily because of its long-term maintenance issues, thus wood requires extra attention to treatment, durability, finishes, maintenance and appropriate application (Crawford, 2011). Wood waste product, or reclaimed wood, which is virtually an untapped resource, shares all the attributes listed above but with a few notable differences. Reclaimed wood, harvested or salvaged from demolition, renovation or construction sites, tends to be older-growth, more dense and generally higher quality than conventional virgin , with an added benefit of reducing the environmental toll of waste, such as increase of greenhouse gases due to landfilling and the depletion of natural resources (Thompson and Sorvig, 2008). As to why reclaimed wood is not used extensively in the US, it poses many logistical, safety and regulatory challenges. Local building codes in the US require a grade stamp for all structural components made from wood (Winterbottom, 2000). Even if a piece of reclaimed wood contains an old stamp, salvaged wood must be re-evaluated by American Lumber Standard Committee (ALSC) accredited lumber-grading agencies to meet current codes. The re-grading process of salvaged lumber is a somber reality for the reuse industry; nonetheless, it is crucial element, as users do not know definitively what type of stresses reclaimed wood has been subjected to over time. Interestingly enough, a study by the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) in 1999 revealed that nail holes and end damage accounted for a majority of grade reduction in reclaimed lumber (Falk, 1999). In other words, simply cutting bad ends off lumber might increase its structural condition and reduce its tendency to failure. The other major difficulty with reclaimed lumber is the process of procuring it safely and efficiently as well as its availability in the marketplace. The process of deconstruction and selective salvage is slow and labor intense, which is potentially costly and ultimately passed down to the client. The availability or scarcity of reclaimed wood is a huge determinant in its success as a building material; for example, estimating enough salvaged materials needed to finish a project (Calkins, 2002; Calkins, 2009). Choosing materials and applications that are less labor intense and relatively easy to execute are a part of every designer’s learning curve. The specific emphasis of this project was to look at the effectiveness of wood waste reuse or reclaimed wood as a sustainable building material and design tool for landscape architects and contractors compared to conventional virgin lumber products. The reuse of wood in the landscape has potential to not only provide economic and ecological values to design and construction projects but also to inform the design process and connect the site to a tangible historical and cultural meaning or sense of place (Calkins, 2002). Thus this study is designed to compare both the use of reused and virgin wood in landscape design and construction in order to answer the following research questions and sub-questions: what is the feasibility of reusing wood in landscape design and construction? How does it compare to contemporary virgin lumber products? What are the impediments to wood reuse as an effective design tool? What is the future outlook for materials reuse in the field of landscape architecture? In this study, the primary method for investigating the effectiveness of waste reuse was to develop and physically construct reuse prototypes of three common landscape structures – a tool shed, fence with gate, and raised bed – that could be evaluated and marketed alongside comparison structures constructed with conventional, virgin lumber. In order to truly explore the diversity and breadth of wood waste as a sustainable building material, each landscape structure was made from three different types of common wood : wood less than four feet in length, full length dimensional barn lumber and wooden pallets. After construction was completed, a formal review of each of the reuse products in comparison to its conventional virgin wood counterpart was administered using an outside panel of design and construction professionals. Each participant was selected to individually grade each landscape structure according to five criteria deemed as integral to product design: aesthetics, affordability, durability, efficiency and ecological impact. Study participants assessed each structure using their own professional opinions in addition to supplementary data provided from the research and construction process.

118

Landscape Research Record No.1

3 THE STUDY: TESTING THE BUILT PRODUCT Dubbed the ‘Reuse Village,’ the physical construction project used for this study was located publicly on a farm site on the South Campus of the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. The overall concept of this experiment in “testing the built product” was to gain practical insight into all phases of the reuse process from material procurement to design and construction implementation. Documenting the entire process from a quantitative standpoint: recording weight totals, hours worked and distance traveled all played a part in the final calculations. Building on past work in the field of reuse, generating experiential knowledge from the entire design and construction process as well as administering a professional review of built products was the general methodology for this study. The premise for analyzing new versus old lumber products in the landscape is to setup a real-life dialogue within the industry of the challenges and opportunities that specific products offer within the green building industry.

3.1 Landscape Products Three types of common landscape items – the tool shed, fence with gate and raised bed - were chosen to serve as prototypes. Each landscape item, typical to any American backyard or community garden, is easily comparable, whether made from reclaimed materials or made from virgin lumber products. The commonality of each item is fundamental to the research of this project because it represents the mainstream culture that is the driving force behind much of the design and construction industry. In order to connect the public to the concept of materials reuse, considerable understanding of the market and people who buy goods and services must be established. Are the reuse landscape products marketable or comparable in quality to the conventional virgin wood landscape product?

3.2 Wood Waste Types In addition to distinguishing landscape products by specific uses, three variations of reclaimed wood types were also used for analysis. The extensive use of wood in the US results in a tremendous amount of wood waste in many forms year after year. In 2002 alone, nearly 63 million metric tons of wood waste was created as a result of the manufacture of a variety of different types of wood-based products (Falk, 2004). The three types of wood waste used are as follows: Wood Scraps – The first wood waste type evaluated was wood scraps less than four feet in length, which can be found in both MSW and C&D waste streams. On average, the National Association of Homebuilders estimates forty percent or three thousand pounds of waste on a home construction site is wood waste (Falk, 1999). Much of these are end cuts and scraps created from framing and trim in wood frame construction. The small size of wood scraps, however, limits the types of application for this product. Full Length Dimensional Lumber - The second type of wood waste used in this project is standard non-painted reclaimed dimensional lumber at full-length. The primary source for this type of wood is demolition and renovation sites. In contrast to the other two wood waste types, full-length dimensional lumber is most analogous to the conventional, virgin wood based counterparts bought at retail stores. Wood Pallets – The third and final wood waste type delineated in this study, the wooden pallet, is an abundant product that is sometimes recycled and reused, but more importantly a significant part of the waste stream. Aside from wood products used for fuel consumption, the wood pallet is the largest domestic user of wood base fiber in the United States (White and Hamner, 2005). Although wood pallets are recyclable only 14.8 percent of total pallets are recovered from the MSW waste stream compared to and products at 65.5 percent (EPA, 2008).

3.3 Design Criteria The final component of the methodology was developing design criteria in order to grade each landscape structure, whether reused or virgin wood. In order to best gauge the product, five key performance standards were presented in survey form. These criteria were aesthetics, affordability, durability, efficiency and ecological impact. Is the design marketable? Is the pricing competitive? Will the materials last? Does it maximize waste as a resource? Does it reduce ecological footprint? For the purposes of simple ranking and analysis, performance measures were graded on a scale of one to five by respondents, one meaning the particular item is least effective and five meaning the particular item is most effective.

119

Landscape Research Record No.1

The reused wood-based products evaluated were labeled as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’, whereas the conventional virgin-wood based product were labeled as ‘Lowe’s.’ Landscape items labeled as ‘A’ utilized the wood material, items ‘B’ used the full-length dimensional lumber and ‘C’ were made from pallets. The new conventional products labeled as ‘Lowe’s’ were items found at typical multi-national home improvement retailers, such as Lowe’s Corp.

3.4 Study Participants The point of the study was to get a thorough appraisal of each item through the lens of construction and design professionals that likely specify these types of materials on a daily basis. For this reason, six design and construction professionals were chosen to complete the evaluation. The six participants were composed of two tenured design faculty with backgrounds in landscape construction and sustainable building, one senior designer at the Office of University Architects, one materials research scientist with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one University administrative director who oversees campus landscape construction and one private contractor who has worked in building construction for thirty years.

4 IMPLEMENTATION The physical construction project of the nine landscape products at the Reuse Village commenced in March of 2012 and took roughly 30 working days to complete. Landscape products were arranged in a linear fashion in zones A, B or C, according to respective reuse material (scraps, full-length or pallet), in order to clearly present the items for evaluation, similar to demonstration areas at major home- improvement retailers (Figure 1). Another key aspect of the experiment was to design products of similar dimensions and form in order to clearly evaluate and differentiate waste types according to realistic standards and compare them to conventional models sold commercially. Although form and dimensions of products were built uniformly, style or construction application varied from item to item as a result of material type. Additionally, materials were applied in the simplest way possible to ensure practicality and usability for consumers, at the same time keeping in mind that consumer taste can be highly subjective. Different application and presentation of materials were used for the purpose of demonstrating the versatility of reclaimed wood.

120

Landscape Research Record No.1

Figure 1. Reuse Village Site Plan 4.1 Material Harvesting All reuse projects vary in terms of material procurement; nonetheless, it is an integral component. In this case, all materials were previously harvested as part of the Material Reuse Program, a pilot project developed the College of Environment + Design and administered by the author. A majority of salvaged materials were harvested within a 10-mile radius of the Reuse Village, while some were harvested on site. In terms of salvage origin, materials came from one building deconstructed on site, various selective salvage projects on campus, several privately deconstructed buildings and trade between other builders. Students and volunteers working for class credit took part in the processing of materials prior to the construction date.

4.2 Reuse Models In the first zone A, wood scraps (less than four feet in length) were the material for the fence and gate cladding, shed envelope and raised bed body (Figure 2). Instead of blocking and , Shed A, employed an atypical cladding approach where interior cavities of the frame were filled with wood scraps using anchors and construction adhesive on backing. In this example, the wood scrap requirement clearly informed the construction method and resulting aesthetics. Fence A, utilizing a mosaic of 2x6 end cuts from the framing, formed more of a solid wall than other fences in this study, whereas the gate stands in stark contrast with visual permeability and more eclectic material aesthetic (pine flooring previously used in an art exhibit). Raised bed A borrowing from the fence wall aesthetic was built using solid 2x6 staggered and screwed to vertical 2x4s. Overall, zone A products exuded a distinct personality and freedom, very different from the other models, but not without sticking to standard principles in design and construction. Additionally, the A products had a definitive heavy appearance, and that they were. The next zone B, composed of full-length dimensional (reclaimed barn lumber), assumed a more traditional and lightweight look and application, despite its unusual (Poplar) wood variety (Figure 3). Shed B was clad in vertical 1x8 and 1x10 Poplar flat board with an identical platform framing system as Shed A; however, the major difference is B products weighs half as much as A. Fence B, to contrast the Shed, featured a ‘ranch style’ horizontal fence with generous spacing.

121

Landscape Research Record No.1

Figure 2. Reuse Items ‘A’ (1) shed (2) fence/gate and (3) raised bed The final zone C featured the common hardwood pallet as its wood waste material (Figure 4). Weighing less than a half-ton, shed C was by far the lightest of sheds while employing an old-growth timber frame structure different than the others. In order to best use pallets, the openness of the timber frame was preferred to form a seamless envelope. Fence C was designed and built with vertical uprights and spacing as well as capped with a 2x6 to give it a more finished look, but more importantly to make the pallet look less like a pallet. Bed C was built similar, if not identical to its corresponding shed, where the pallet is inserted into the frame.

Figure 3. Reuse Items 'B' (1) shed (2) fence/gate and (3) raised bed

122

Landscape Research Record No.1

Figure 4. Reuse Items 'C' (1) shed (2) fence/gate and (3) raised bed 4.3 Comparison Models Without a baseline comparison model, there was little evidence for this study to gauge the effectiveness of the reused wood in the landscape. Comparable items of similar dimensions, style and form were used in this survey and graded in identical manner as the reuse products. The ‘Lowes’ tool shed, for example was nearly identical in square footage and overall proportions, however, different in wood material (cedar), application (horizontal, beveled siding) and slightly altered in form (low, gable- ended roof). The ‘Lowes’ fence chosen for comparison was a typical seven-foot high, pressure-treated spruce, dog-eared fence with vertical slats. Since raised planting beds are not sold as products, but instead as individual pieces for home-installation, the ‘Lowes’ bed used for comparison employed a common construction application using non-treated cedar 2x6 in similar treatment as reuse model bed A.

4.4 Evaluation Data A thorough amount of background data was compiled to supplement the reviewers in making informed decisions about products. The supplemental data sheet included the following: item weight; total hours needed to construct; cost to build (which factored in labor costs plus material value); source of materials in distance; embodied energy ranking (formulated on additional sheet); linear footage of materials used; wood age; and wood type (Table 1). Data was calculated during the process, so for example, an approximation of weight was determined through weighing individual pieces on an agricultural scale and totaling them. With regards to weight, reclaimed wood, particularly older sticks lose weight over time as a result of a natural drop in moisture content, thus explaining why the timber frame on Shed C was significantly lighter than expected. Another key factor - labor and cost - were derived using standard carpentry rates according to BLS statistics in tandem with estimated hours used in fabrication and installation. Basic embodied energy, the amount of energy required to produce an object, was calculated primarily using source data, volume of material and electricity usage; however, the information was merely ranked according to total but provided on a separate sheet. Basic embodied energy, unlike life cycle analysis, does not account for operation and maintenance over time, which is a limitation of the study.

123

Landscape Research Record No.1

Table 1. Supplemental Data Sheet

5 STUDY FINDINGS According to performance standards, side-by-side comparisons reveal that the A items did best with aesthetics, while C structures scored the worst. Conversely, with affordability, the results were flipped as the C items scored highest, whereas A and Lowe’s items scored the lowest. Respondents rated the B products highest in the durability category as once again C products were rated worst. In terms of efficiency and ecological impact, all of the reuse landscape products scored highest and the non-reuse ‘Lowe’s’ products overwhelmingly scored low. Though the positive response in efficiency and ecological impact were similar, B products scored highest for the shed, and C items succeeded with the fence with gate while A structures narrowly received the highest score for raised beds. In totality, all of the reuse landscape items were well received by respondents; however, there were many lessons in style and application that could be taken from the experience (Table 2). Despite the aesthetic success of Shed A, the amount of labor involved as well as the sheer weight of the structure make it unrealistic for most situations, particularly as a pre-fabricated model. On one hand, the scrap wood structures utilize a fair amount of “hard-to-reuse” waste but also the material application could be seen as redundant requiring more energy and labor. In contrast, the aesthetic failures of pallet structures may call to question its viability as a building material. Pallets are extremely common and make up a significant part of the waste stream, though they are also highly reusable and recyclable as pallets. It may be that pallets are not aesthetically appropriate for every situation; for example, they seem to fit in well in rural settings with less stringent codes, but would be unsuitable in a suburban neighborhood. Although the A and C structures did well in their own categories, the more traditional looking B items easy to construct, while retaining acceptable aesthetic qualities, thus making them the most competitive structures against the Lowe’s products. Affordability and efficiency as a product make the B structures available to a wider audience, which a critical goal of this project.

124

Landscape Research Record No.1

Table 2. Survey Results (1=least effective; 5=most effective)

6 CONCLUSION The underlying justification of the Reuse Village experiment was to gain knowledge into the effectiveness of reclaimed wood as a building product and design tool, specifically through the experiential building process coupled with a careful review by professionals within the design and construction industry. In conjunction with the physical evidence, an analysis of the existing body of academic and technical work in the fields of wood reuse, sustainable landscape construction and green building provided a template for investigating further. While the experiential process represents a personal journey for the emerging designer, the professional design opinions and existing body of knowledge demonstrate a consensus among leaders in the industry. The ability for humans to engage and share ideas creates a consensus that ultimately defines our culture and how we choose to design the world.

6.1 Key Components to Reusing Wood in the Landscape The construction of the Reuse Village not only provides tangible results for evaluation and synthesis of ideas but also reveals the errors and rewards of the decision-making process along the way, while the existing data provides the framework for focusing efforts. The survey results help to verify or refute the success of reused materials compared to conventional, virgin wood-based products. The following is a list of important lessons learned and conclusions determined as a result of an analysis of the existing body of research in reuse, the implementation of the built project and the subsequent product review. a. Reused wood has the aesthetic potential to compete with or improve upon conventional virgin- wood lumber products. As evidenced in the success of all the A landscape products as well as shed B, the reclaimed wood products performed well against conventional Lowe’s products. Lack of uniformity, however, is one aesthetic condition that plagued the pallet-based C products. Conversely, irregularity was a virtue of the success of A products as the numerous sizes, types and colors of reclaimed wood made for a creative alternative to an otherwise mundane look of conventional or traditional application. The more conservative approach utilizing Poplar upright boards evidenced in Shed B demonstrates that reclaimed wood also has the potential to look more clean and modern that may captivate a wider audience.

125

Landscape Research Record No.1

b. Reused wood contains cultural and historical values specific to its local origin that can add layers and to a landscape’s depth. Using reclaimed wood is an easy way to relate a site to its local culture. Each piece of lumber with its own texture, type and color tells a story to the site user without a need for literal translation. A rich patina layered with nail holes, burn marks, writing, paint, tree rings, burns and saw marks are all typical characteristics found in the lumber used in this project. c. Reused wood has the potential for significant savings in energy consumption compared to conventional virgin wood products but is highly variable according to its source. The origin of reclaimed wood plays a huge role in its energy efficiency as a product. In terms of embodied energy, or the energy it takes to produce a material, reclaimed wood has the lowest energy requirements because it is harvested using minimal equipment and is mostly a local product. According to basic embodied energy calculations in this study, locally sourced reclaimed Southern Yellow Pine and Poplar achieved incredible advantage over its virgin Western red cedar counterparts sold at Lowe’s produced in British Columbia more than three thousand miles from Georgia. In terms of “production” reclaimed lumber is harvested or dismantled, or in this case deconstructed by hand instead of produced using petroleum products. If reclaimed materials have to be purchased from an outside market or require mechanical extraction, energy consumption increases, thus the availability and accessibility of materials has a significant role in whether a project is efficient, both in cost and energy. Another important factor in energy consumption is time, for example the maintenance, operation and durability of materials; however, because the study focused on comparing new vs. old wood-based products instead of wood vs. , time is less of a consideration in terms of energy costs when comparing two products of the same kind. d. Reused lumber products likely have limitations in durability; however, all wood is impermanent. Time is a major element of this project that was unable to be calculated, but undoubtedly plays a major role in the life cycle of landscape materials. Wood is impermanent. Nonetheless, there is several wood qualities that can determine durability such as treated compared to untreated lumber, old growth compared to new growth. By and large, the density associated with old-growth timber is significantly different than virgin timber harvested in monoculture forests and this plays a role in how long it can last. The question that remains to be answered is whether old-growth, tighter grained reclaimed lumber outpaces modern-treated lumber or typically rot-resistant wood in longevity. Of course, even creosoted railroad timbers can rot with time. e. Reused wood has the potential for cost savings, but it is highly variable to labor requirements, design and material availability. Reusing lumber in design and construction projects is always labor- intense because it requires both processes of construction and salvage, and as a result, prices of materials wildly fluctuate. Shed A is a good example of a physical undertaking that may or may not be worth the time commitment. Coming up with an easy, straightforward design is key to labor efficiency. In addition, if materials are not readily available, transportation costs have to be included. As salvage markets across the US slowly expand, prices may begin to ease. Expansion of the salvage supply chain is key in the affordability of reuse materials, while simplified construction application is critical to labor concerns. f. Reclaimed lumber has serious issues with quality control, which limit is use in construction projects, but landscape application may be absolved. All lumber used in structural components require a grade stamp. With the exception of bridges, decks and large outbuildings, local building codes do not necessarily require a grade stamp on landscape structures. Aside from durability issues, it seems that landscape construction may be the best fit for reclaimed lumber, because structures similar to those built in the Reuse Village do not require stringent oversight that would disqualify reclaimed wood. Some quality control problems can be resolved by merely sawing off end damage. g. Reused wood can be a practical alternative to conventional virgin wood products in terms of performance and applicability. Reclaimed lumber is not appropriate for every situation, but it is potentially an effective alternative to conventional virgin lumber as it can be ecologically, economically and culturally beneficial to a landscape design and construction project. Resolving issues of labor and associated costs, addressing durability, improving availability, and employing a streamlined design approach is key to the success of a reuse project.

6.2 Closing the Loop Although it sometimes seems the reuse industry is handicapped by a number of well-established forces, in actuality the tides have slowly begun to turn. The recent introduction of green building standards

126

Landscape Research Record No.1

has opened the floodgates for research and development, creating a more inviting climate for reform and change. Improving access and availability to salvaged materials, educating the public on its benefits and encouraging local initiatives to expand reuse and recycling is central to the growth of reuse networks. The most important aspect of closing the loop of building materials and establishing reclaimed wood as an effective landscape design and construction material is creating an environment conducive to its success.

7 REFERENCES Addis, B. (2006). Building with reclaimed components and materials: A design handbook for reuse and recycling. London, UK: Earthscan Publishing Inc. Calkins, M. (2000). Closing the loop. Landscape Architecture Magazine, August 2000: 42-47. Calkins, M. (2002). Second chance. Landscape Architecture Magazine, November 2002: 34-37. Calkins, M. (2002). Closing the loop II. Landscape Architecture Magazine, December 2002: 38- 43. Calkins, M. (2009). Materials for sustainable sites: A complete guide to sustainable construction materials. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc. Crawford, R. (2011). Life cycle assessment in the built environment. New York, NY: Spon Press, 8-14. DCA. (2010). MSW and C&D landfill tipping fees: 2009 solid waste management update. Atlanta, GA: GA Department of Community Affairs, April 7, 2010. EPA. (2008). Municipal solid waste generation, recycling and disposal in the US: Facts and figures for 2008. Washington DC: US EPA, 1-12. EPA. (2009). Opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through materials and land management practices, September 2009. Falk, R. H. (2010). The wood handbook: Wood as an engineering material. Madison, WI: USDA Forest Products Laboratory. Falk, R. H., & McKeever, D. B. (2004). Recovering wood for reuse and recycling; A United States perspective. Madison, WI: Forest Products Laboratory. Falk, R. H. (2002). Wood-framed building deconstruction: A source of lumber for construction? Madison, WI: Forest Products Journal. Falk, R. H. (1999). Effect of damage on the grade yield of recycled lumber. Madison, WI: Forest Products Journal. Kibert, C., Sendzimir, J., & Guy, B. (2001). Construction ecology: Nature as the basis for green buildings. London, UK: Spon Press. Lyons, A. (2007). Materials for architects and builders, 3rd Edition. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Publishing. O’Connor, J., & Sathre, R. (2010). A synthesis of research on wood products and greenhouse gas impacts, 2nd Edition. Gen. Tech. Rep. TR-19R. Vancouver, BC: FPI. Thompson, W. J., & Sorvig, Kim. (2008). Sustainable landscape construction: A guide to green building outdoors, 2nd Edition. Washington DC: Island Press. White, M. S., & Hamner, P. (2005). Pallets move the world: The case for developing systems- based designs for unit loads. Madison, WI: Forest Products Journal.

127